Department for Culture, Media and Sport

National Heritage Memorial Fund tailored review

Tracey Crouch: I am today announcing the start of a tailored review of the National Heritage Memorial Fund (NHMF). As a Non-Departmental Public Body (NDPB), the NHMF, including its activities operating as the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF), is required to undergo a tailored review at least once in each parliament.The review will consist of two stages. The first stage will provide a robust challenge for the continuing need for the functions performed by the NHMF and the HLF, and, if there is, whether some or all of these functions should be delivered by alternative delivery models or continued to be delivered by a NDPB.If it is agreed that the functions should continue to be delivered as a NDPB, the second stage will review the organisational control and governance arrangements in place to ensure that they are compliant with the recognised principles of good corporate governance and delivering good value for money. The structure, efficiency and effectiveness of both the NHMF and the HLF will be considered as part of both stages.The findings at both stages of the review will be examined by a Challenge Group, chaired chaired by DCMS Non-Executive Director Charles Alexander. A separate steering group will consist of representatives from the Welsh Government, Scottish Government, Northern Ireland Executive and UK Government.In conducting the review, officials will engage with a broad range of stakeholders across the UK from heritage, culture and natural environment sectors. The review will follow guidance published in 2016 by the Cabinet Office: ‘Tailored reviews: guidance on reviews of public bodies’. The Terms of Reference for the review and a survey seeking evidence about NHMF and HLF can be found on the DCMS website.I will inform the House of the outcome of the review when it is completed and copies of the report of the review will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. 


This statement has also been made in the House of Lords: 
HLWS496

Ministry of Justice

Prison governor empowerment and accountability

Elizabeth Truss: I have today introduced the Prisons and Courts Bill, which will create a new statutory framework to support the Government’s plans to make prisons places of safety and reform. The measures in the Bill are a vital part of the wider structural reforms announced in the Prison Safety and Reform white paper published on 3 November 2016. The right framework and standards for improvementIn the white paper we committed to reforming how the prison system is structured in order to make lines of accountability clear and create sharper and more transparent scrutiny. To deliver this, the Prisons and Courts Bill will enshrine in statute the purpose of prison, setting out for the first time that reform of offenders is a key aim for prisons. The Bill makes clear how the Secretary of State for Justice will account to Parliament for progress in reforming offenders. The Bill also provides strengthened powers to Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons, including enabling the Chief Inspector to trigger an urgent response from the Secretary of State where they have significant concerns about a particular prison that need to be addressed as a matter of urgency. It puts the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman on a statutory footing, giving them greater permanence and powers. The white paper set out how this new framework will be underpinned by new standards, a new commissioning structure and new powers for governors. This will create a more focused prison system where governors are clear what they need to deliver and are empowered to do so. To deliver this, we will create new, 3 year performance agreements signed by the Secretary of State and the governor of each prison. The agreements will be phased in over the next two years: the first third of prisons will sign the new agreements on 1 April, with the other two thirds moving to this approach by 1 April 2019. The agreements will include the following standards, based on the aims for prisons set out in the Bill, which governors will be held to account for: Protecting the public. We will do this by measuring, from April 2017:o The number of escapes from closed prisons;o The number of absconds from open prisons; ando Compliance with key security processes such as searching. Reforming offenders. We will do this by measuring:o Time spent out of cell, starting from April 2017 in the prisons where the technology to track this has been introduced;o Progress made in getting offenders off drugs. Prisoners will be tested on entry and exit with a phased roll out beginning in 2017;o Progress made in health, starting with a measure of medical appointments attended by prisoners starting in England from April 2017;o Progress made in maths and English, starting with qualifications gained from April 2017 and introducing testing on entry and exit in the longer term; ando Progress in maintaining or developing family relationships. This will be a new measure which we are currently developing. Preparing prisoners for life on release. We will do this by measuring, from April 2017:o Rate of prisoners being released to suitable accommodation;o Rates of sustainable employment, including apprenticeships, and education in the period following release. Improving safety. We will do this by measuring, from April 2017:o Assaults on prison staff and prisoners;o Disorder and self-harm; ando Staff and prisoner perceptions of safety. We want the public to understand what progress is being made in our prisons, so we will publish data setting out how prisons are performing. We will collect the data from April 2017 and begin publishing official statistics regularly from October 2017. To support delivery of these reforms on the ground, on 1 April we are creating a new, operationally-focused executive agency, Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service, which will be responsible for all operations across prison and probation and will refocus headquarters on supporting, not micro-managing, governors. The Secretary of State will set standards, commission services, and hold them to account. Empowering governors to deliverIf we are to hold governors to account for meeting this new standards, they must be given the power to deliver change. We are devolving key operational policies to give governors greater flexibility, and have already cancelled 101 policies to help reduce bureaucracy for prisons. We will also remove current restrictions so that from 1 April 2017, governors have the freedom to: Design their regime to meet local delivery needs and target training and work in prisons to match the local labour market. Prisoners could, for example, work shift patterns to deliver new commercial contracts. This would help them to meet the standards to reform offenders and prepare prisoners for life on release.Decide their workforce strategy, including their staffing structure, to support meeting the standards. They could bring in specialists to work with particular types of prisoners, and tailor their staffing to support the prison regime they have designed.Control how they spend their resource budget. They could choose, for example, to pay for increased dedicated police officer time to reduce criminal activity in prison to improve safety and protect the public.Plan and take decisions about health services jointly with local health commissioners, through a co-commissioning framework. Over the coming months, we will build on these essential freedoms even further by giving governors additional scope to: Decide what education opportunities they offer. Over 2017 and 2018, we will give governors control of the education budget, so that they can overhaul education and training to match the skills and qualifications prisoners need in the local labour market.Control how family support services work. From autumn 2017, governors will control budgets for family services, like visitors’ centres and parenting skills classes, so they can choose the right way to support family relationships.Have more say on the goods and services in their prison. As each national contract ends, for example on food or equipment, we will determine how to devolve responsibility to governors. This process of devolution and deregulation is being supported by learning from the work of the six reform prisons. These prisons will continue to explore and identify options for devolution across the estate as wider reforms are implemented. We have commissioned a formal evaluation to support this with regular feedback being provided to inform policy development ahead of the final report in early 2018. These reforms are major changes that will result in sustained improvement over a decade. By the end of this Parliament this strategy will have delivered much needed new facilities, empowered governors and introduced modern technology to improve regimes, support reform and combat security threats.


This statement has also been made in the House of Lords: 
HLWS495

Department for Work and Pensions

Social Security

Penny Mordaunt: Today I am laying before Parliament amendments to the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) Regulations to restore the original aim of the benefit, making sure we are giving support to those who need it most. PIP is a modern and dynamic benefit which contributes to the extra costs faced by people with disabilities and health conditions. It replaces Disability Living Allowance (DLA), which no longer properly took into account the needs of disabled people. Since PIP’s introduction, greater support is going to the most vulnerable; over a quarter of those on PIP receive the highest level of support compared to just 15% of DLA’s working-age claimants. At the core of PIP’s design is the principle that non-physical conditions should be given the same recognition as physical ones. That is why we developed the assessment criteria in collaboration with disabled people and independent specialists in health, social care and disability. Now, over two thirds of PIP claimants with mental health conditions get the higher Daily Living award, worth £82.30 per week, compared to 22% under DLA. The Government continually monitors the effectiveness of PIP to ensure it is delivering its original policy intent and supporting those who face the greatest barriers to leading independent lives. Two recent Upper Tribunal judgments have broadened the way the PIP assessment criteria should be interpreted, going beyond the original intention. In order to make sure the initial purpose of PIP is maintained, we are making drafting amendments to the criteria which provide greater clarity. This will not result in any claimants seeing a reduction in the amount of PIP previously awarded by DWP. The first judgment held that needing support to take medication and monitor a health condition should be scored in the same way as needing support to manage therapy, like dialysis, undertaken at home. Until this ruling, the assessment made a distinction between these two groups, on the basis that people who need support to manage therapy of this kind are likely to have a higher level of need, and therefore face higher costs. The second held that someone who cannot make a journey without assistance due to psychological distress should be scored in the same way as a person who needs assistance because they have difficulties navigating. By way of example, the first group might include some people with isolated social phobia or anxiety, whereas the second group might include some people who are blind. Until this ruling, the assessment made a distinction between these two groups, on the basis that people who cannot navigate, due to a visual or cognitive impairment, are likely to have a higher level of need, and therefore face higher costs. If not urgently addressed, the operational complexities could undermine the consistency of assessments, leading to confusion for all those using the legislation, including claimants, assessors, and the courts. It is because of the urgency caused by these challenges, and the implications on public expenditure, that proposals for these amendments have not been referred to the Social Security Advisory Committee before making the regulations. PIP is being devolved to the Scottish Government and I will continue to work closely with Scottish Ministers on the transfer of responsibilities. The Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) (Amendment) Regulations 2017, Explanatory Memorandum and Equality Analysis will be available on legislation.gov.uk.


This statement has also been made in the House of Lords: 
HLWS497

Department for Communities and Local Government

Local Growth

Sajid Javid: Further to my statements of 23 January 2017 and 2 February 2017 regarding the Growth Deal awards to the Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) in the Northern Powerhouse, East of England, South East and London, I am today announcing the six individual awards to LEPs in the South West of England.Between them they will benefit from £191 million of Government support from the Local Growth Fund, on top of the £780 million committed in previous Growth Deals.Table A: Growth Deal 3 Funding Awards for LEPs in the South West of EnglandLEPFunding Award (£m)Cornwall and Isles of Scilly18.03Dorset19.46Gloucestershire29.13Heart of the South West43.57Swindon and Wiltshire28.09West of England52.80 We have now awarded over £9 billion to LEPs from the Local Growth Fund. With the Home Building Fund and Local Transport Majors launched in 2016 we have fulfilled our manifesto commitment to a £12 billion Local Growth Fund. It is a crucial part of the Government’s agenda to drive growth and devolve power to local areas, with decisions being made by those who know their local area best, and supporting the Government’s commitment to build an economy that works for everyone.This was the most competitive round yet, and awards were made based on a bidding round that took place last year.The expanded deals will provide LEPs in the South West with the power and funding to support local businesses, unlock housing where it is most needed and develop vital infrastructure to allow places to thrive. The funding will also be used to create jobs, equip a new generation with the skills they need for the future and attract billions of pounds of private sector investment. This investment is Government stepping up, not stepping back, building on our strengths to boost national productivity and growth.I will announce the awards in the Midlands shortly. 


This statement has also been made in the House of Lords: 
HLWS494

Department for International Development

Supply Process

Priti Patel: Like other Departments, the Department for International Development will meet a number of pre-existing and routine commitments from the Contingencies Fund due to the timing of the Royal Assent for the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill.Parliamentary approval for additional net cash of £512,182,000 (five hundred and twelve million, one hundred and eighty two thousand pounds), was sought in the 2016-17 Supplementary Estimate for the Department for International Development, which was published on 9th February 2017. To meet cash requirements ahead of that approval, expenditure estimated at £345,855,000 (three hundred and forty five million, eight hundred and fifty five thousand pounds) will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund. The advance will be repaid upon Royal Assent of the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill.The total Official Development Assistance (ODA) allocation agreed with HM Treasury has not changed and the transaction will be returned upon Royal Assent of the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill. This is a routine part of the normal intra-government accounting process.

Home Office

Government Transparency Report

Amber Rudd: I have today laid before the House the second iteration of the Government Transparency Report on the use of disruptive and investigatory powers (CM 9420). Copies of the Report will be made available in the Vote Office.In view of the ongoing threat from terrorism, which remains at SEVERE, meaning an attack is highly likely, and the persistent threats from organised crime and hostile state activity, it is vital that our law enforcement, and security and intelligence agencies can use disruptive and investigatory powers to counter those threats and to keep the public safe. This Report sets out the way in which those powers are used by the agencies and the independent oversight which governs their use.This Government remains committed to increasing the transparency of the work of our security and intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and this next iteration of the Transparency Report is a key part of that commitment. Since the last Report was published, the Government has published extensive material on the use of investigatory powers. And the passage through Parliament of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 saw more information about the work of the agencies put in to the public domain than ever before. The Transparency Report builds on that.It is split into two main sections. The first includes statistics on the use of disruptive and investigatory powers, explains their utility, and outlines the legal frameworks that ensure they can only be used when necessary and proportionate.The second section explains the roles of the Commissioners, and other bodies, that provide independent oversight and scrutiny of the use of the powers. The Report also provides an overview of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 and points to changes which will occur once the Act is implemented.Publishing this Report ensures that the public are able to access, in one place, a guide to the range of powers used to combat threats to the security of the United Kingdom, the extent of their use and the safeguards and oversight in place to ensure they are used properly. It is designed to be read in conjunction with the Annual Reports on the counter-terrorism (CONTEST) and serious and organised crime strategies.Of course, there remain limits to what can be said publically about the use of certain sensitive techniques, because to go too far could aid criminals and terrorists, encouraging them to change their behaviour in order to evade detection. However, it is vital the public are confident that the security and intelligence, and law enforcement agencies have the powers they need to protect the public, and the knowledge that those powers are used proportionately.


This statement has also been made in the House of Lords: 
HLWS493

Annual Report of the National DNA Database Strategy Board

Brandon Lewis: I am pleased to announce that I am, today, publishing the Annual Report of the National DNA Database (NDNAD) Strategy Board for 2015/16.Gary Pugh OBE, Chair of the National DNA Strategy Board, has presented the Annual Report of the National DNA Strategy Board to the Home Secretary. Publication of the Report is a statutory requirement under section 63AB(7) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 as inserted by 24 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.The Report demonstrates the important contribution of the NDNAD to the investigation of crimes. I am grateful to the Strategy Board for their commitment to fulfilling their statutory functions.Copies of the Report will be available from the Vote Office.


This statement has also been made in the House of Lords: 
HLWS491

Consultation on draft codes of practice under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016

Mr Ben Wallace: I am today announcing the publication of the Government’s consultation on five new codes of practice under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.The Investigatory Powers Act does three key things:It brings together powers already available to law enforcement and the security and intelligence agencies to obtain communications and data about communications. It makes these powers – and the safeguards that apply to them – clear and understandable.It radically overhauls the way these powers are authorised and overseen. It introduces a ‘double-lock’ for the most intrusive powers, including interception and all of the bulk capabilities, so that these warrants cannot be issued until the decision to do so has been approved by a Judicial Commissioner. And it creates a powerful new Investigatory Powers Commissioner to oversee how these powers are used.It ensures powers are fit for the digital age. The Act makes a new provision for the retention of internet connection records in order for law enforcement to identify the communications service to which a device has connected. This will restore capabilities that have been lost as a result of changes in the way people communicate.This Act provides world-leading transparency and privacy protection. It received unprecedented and exceptional scrutiny in Parliament and was passed with cross-party support. There should be no doubt about the necessity of the powers that it contains or the strength of the safeguards that it includes.All of these draft Codes of Practice set out the processes and safeguards governing the use of investigatory powers. They give detail on how the relevant powers should be used, including examples of best practice. They are intended to provide additional clarity and to ensure the highest standards of professionalism and compliance with this important legislation.The consultation will last six weeks. Copies of the consultation document and draft codes will be placed in the House Library. Online versions will be available on the www.gov.uk website.


This statement has also been made in the House of Lords: 
HLWS492

European Union opt in decision: EU proposal for a Regulation establishing a common European Union Resettlement Framework

Mr Robert Goodwill: The Government has decided not to opt in to the EU proposal for a Regulation establishing a common European Union Resettlement Framework.Under the proposed EU Resettlement Framework, the total number of people to be resettled to the EU in a given year and the countries to be resettled from would be decided by the Council following a proposal from the Commission and set out in annual Union Resettlement Plans. The Framework would also establish certain common elements for the resettlement process, including: rules on admission, including eligibility criteria and exclusion grounds; the standard procedures governing all stages of the resettlement process; the status to be accorded to resettled people; and, the decision-making procedures for implementing the Framework.The UK is of the view that resettlement schemes are best operated at the national level. This allows for greater control and flexibility over both the source countries to be resettled from and the resettlement process. The Government is of the view that the stated reasons for action at EU-level, such as alleviating pressures on countries hosting a disproportionate number of displaced individuals, gaining influence in policy dialogues with third countries, and improving the resettlement process, can equally be achieved through close cooperation between international partners operating national resettlement schemes. National schemes also allow resettlement efforts to be aligned with the domestic and international priorities of individual Member States, including maintaining full control over the numbers to be resettled.The UK has committed to resettling 20,000 Syrians to the UK under our Syrian Vulnerable Person’s Resettlement Scheme (VPRS), and 3,000 vulnerable children and their families to the UK under the Vulnerable Children’s Resettlement Scheme, by the end of this Parliament. In the year ending September 2016, 4,162 people were resettled under the Syrian VPRS, across 175 different local authorities. These commitments are in addition to our longstanding Gateway Protection Programme and Mandate resettlement scheme.Until the UK leaves the EU, it remains a full member, and the Government will continue to consider the application of the UK’s right to opt in to forthcoming EU legislation in the area of justice and home affairs on a case by case basis, with a view to maximising our country’s security, protecting our civil liberties and enhancing our ability to control immigration.


This statement has also been made in the House of Lords: 
HLWS490

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Amendments to the UK’s Optional Clause Declaration to the International Court of Justice

Sir Alan Duncan: The Government has informed the UN Secretary-General of an amendment to the United Kingdom’s Optional Clause Declaration (Declaration) accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (Court / ICJ). The Declaration accepts the jurisdiction of the Court in contentious cases that come within its scope.The Government keeps its Declaration under review. The ICJ case on nuclear disarmament filed by the Marshall Islands against the United Kingdom in 2014 concluded with a judgment of 5 October 2016 that upheld the United Kingdom’s preliminary objections to jurisdiction. We have now decided to build into our Declaration two key elements that underpinned the principal arguments that the Government made in those preliminary objections.The revised Declaration requires other States to give six months notice of a claim or dispute against the UK that they propose to submit to the ICJ. This would provide an opportunity for diplomatic engagement with the State concerned. The prior notification of a claim is an established part of domestic dispute resolution in the United Kingdom, as well as being a feature of the dispute settlement provisions in many international treaties. The judgment of the ICJ in the nuclear disarmament case accepted that a State must be made aware that litigants have opposing views, otherwise a respondent State does not have the opportunity to react to those opposing views before the institution of proceedings against it. The revised Declaration incorporates the UK position that was advanced in the proceedings that prior notification of the kind described is an appropriate step before an application instituting proceedings, seising the Court, can be submitted.The United Kingdom would be held to the terms of the new Declaration in respect of any proceedings that it may wish to institute. The Government is content to be held to this standard.In addition, the revised Declaration also includes a reservation excluding from the Court’s jurisdiction any cases related to nuclear weapons and/or nuclear disarmament unless the other four Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) nuclear-weapons States also accept the Court’s jurisdiction with respect to the case. The Government does not believe the United Kingdom’s actions in respect of such weapons and nuclear disarmament can meaningfully be judged in isolation. This amendment to our Declaration provides that the ICJ will only have jurisdiction over nuclear weapons or nuclear disarmament disputes when the proceedings involve all five of the NPT nuclear-weapons States.We have also made changes to advance the cut-off date for historical cases to 1987, keeping it at thirty years, and to make clear that a repeated claim, as well as a dispute, is also excluded.The Government is firm in our commitment to a rules based international order. We continue to accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ and believe that the Court has a valuable role to play in resolving international disputes peacefully.


This statement has also been made in the House of Lords: 
HLWS489